Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee: Post-implementation Reviews

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comprehensive and largely helpful reply. I thank all noble Lords who have participated and contributed so much to this important debate. It would also be appropriate if I expressed the committee’s thanks, which has already been done in part, to the committee officials for all the work that they have done and the advice that they have given in connection with the preparation of our report. The issue that we have been discussing is crucial, since it is about the effectiveness of the Government in implementing and achieving their objectives. That has an impact, to a greater or lesser degree, on the lives of everyone. As a number of speakers have said, unless legislation is reviewed, departments will not learn whether their regulations have been effective or what forms of intervention work best. Evaluation is not just about finding out what did not work but should also be about finding out what worked well and spreading that knowledge so that future legislation is more effective. I reiterate, though, that we did not say that every piece of secondary legislation needs a full post-implementation review—I think there has been some confusion on that. I repeat that we said that the Explanatory Memorandum should include an explanation of the department’s plans to review the statutory instrument. It is also fair to say that the Merits Committee seeks to hold departments to account. We have asked departments on more than one occasion, some departments more than once, to appear before the committee because we have been dissatisfied with the documentation that they have produced. There is a limit to what the committee can do, though, and the Government have an important role in this regard. Our interest in the evaluation of legislation arises because over time we see a series of regulations on particular subjects, and we also hope to see an improvement in the evidence that supports them, their targeting and their cost-effectiveness. We believe that the current level of evaluation of about 54 per cent is insufficient to achieve that improvement. I repeat: there is a limit to what the Merits Committee can do, although it will continue to play whatever role it can in improving the situation. While we agree with the Government’s view that evaluation should be integrated, proportionate and transparent, we would add that it also needs to be systematic. It needs the Government to ensure that proper and appropriate post-implementation reviews or evaluations are carried out by departments. The Merits Committee needs to know that it has the Government’s backing and that the Government will be taking an interest and watching departments’ performance closely, and I think that that is what the Minister has indicated today in replying. The title of the report that we have been discussing starts with the words, "What happened next?". What happens next—or does not happen—after the publication of our report, the debate today and, in particular, the Minister’s reply will, I am sure, be of considerable interest to the Merits Committee in the months ahead. Motion agreed.